TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (12) TMI 691
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ct on 24.09.1996. Prior to this search, Enforcement Directorate also conducted search on the premises of the assessee on 21.09.1995. Consequent to the search conducted on the assessee by the Income-tax Department u/s. 132 of the Act on 24.09.1996, notice u/s. 158BC of the Act dated 23.12.1996 was served on the assessee on 28.12.1996 through the Superintendent of Central Prison, Palayamkottai as the assessee was in remand proceedings. Subsequently, notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act was issued on 11.08.1997 for which assessee filed reply on 26.08.1997. The assessee filed his return of income in Form No.2B on 25.09.1997 just 5 days before limitation for completion of block assessment. The assessee admitted an income of Rs. 18,04,100/- for the block period but without paying self-assessment tax of Rs. 9,52,460/-. The original block assessment was completed for the period 01.04.1986 to 24.09.1996 vide ex-parte assessment u/s. 144 r.w.s. 158BC of the Act by assessing total undisclosed income of Rs. 9,60,84,250/- vide order dated 30.09.1997. The block assessment order was challenged before ITAT and ITAT vide order dated 07.08.1998 dismissed the appeal of assessee on the ground of non-payment ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... used for the purpose of block assessment. 14. Hence we set aside the issue to the assessing officer to redo the assessment after giving adequate opportunity to the assessee. 2.1 Subsequently, the assessee filed appeal before Hon'ble High Court of Madras in TCA No.1790 of 2008 against the order of ITAT in IT(SS)A No.90/Mds/2006 dated 14.12.2007 and the Hon'ble High Court of Madras granted interim stay for completion of assessment till 02.02.2009. The Hon'ble High Court vide its judgment dated 17.04.2009 directed the AO to pass the assessment order in accordance with law but giving effect of such order was stayed till the disposal of tax case appeal. Accordingly, the block assessment proceedings were again taken up for scrutiny and accordingly, block assessment u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 115BC r.w.s. 254 of the Act was completed on 15.06.2009 repeating the same total income for block period at Rs. 9,60,84,250/-. Aggrieved against this block assessment order, assessee preferred appeal before ITAT and ITAT vide its order in IT(SS)A No.28/Mds/2009 dated 28.10.2016 had set aside the assessment order by observing in paras 5 & 6 as under:- "We have heard both sides, perused 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e before the Assessing Officer, Thus, we remit the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer to give one more opportunity of hearing and thereafter the Assessing Officer is duty bound to complete the assessment in conformity with earlier directions of the Tribunal in I.T.(SS)A.No.90/Mds/2006 dated 14.12.2007 at paras 19 & 20 as well as by following the ratio laid down in the case of CIT v.R.M. Patel (HUF) 298 ITR 274(Mad). The assessee is also directed to cooperative with the Department for completing the assessment." 2.2 In view of the above directions of ITAT, the AO issued detailed questionnaire dated 27.02.2017 calling for the sources in respect of various additions, which we will discuss in later part of this order. Accordingly, this block assessment was completed by the AO u/s. 143(3) r.w.s.158BC r.w.s. 254 of the Act, vide order dated 31.03.2017, which is the impugned order before us. 3. The first issue on merits in this appeal of assessee is as regards to the order of AO making addition in block assessment of the amount of deposits standing in the name of assessee's wife as undisclosed income and consequential interest on the above deposits. For this, assessee ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Sri Ram Group of Companies by Smt. B. Subhashri, the wife of assessee and this is accepted by Smt. B. Subhashri by filing a letter dated 23.09.1997 claiming the receipt of marriage gift and made deposit out of such marriage gift but the AO has added in the hands of the assessee instead of assessing the same in her name. When a query was put to ld. Senior Standing Counsel for the Revenue, he could not controvert the above fact situation that the FDR was in the name of assessee's wife Smt. B. Subhashri made with Sri Ram Group of Companies of Rs. 10 lakhs as on 17.10.1994. The assessee in his sworn statement on 26.08.1997 admitted that the FDR is made by his wife out of her own sources i.e., gift received by her at the time of her marriage and it is her money only. Even, assessee's wife Smt. B. Subhashri vide letter dated 23.09.1997 claimed the ownership of FDR of Rs. 10 lakhs made with Sri Ram Group of Companies on 17.10.1994 and claimed receipt of marriage gift and made deposits out of such marriage gift. Lack of evidence or proof does not give entitlement to Revenue to make addition in the hands of the assessee as the ownership lies with the wife of the assessee. Admittedly, the F....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ifted article, but that is of no evidentiary value because he was not party to the gift. Hence, in the given facts and circumstances, as admitted by assessee's wife Smt. B. Subhashri vide letter dated 23.09.1997 owning up these assets is to be considered as owner of the asset and addition in any case, is to be made in her hands only. Hence, in view of the above, we delete the addition and allow this issue of assessee's appeal. 9. The next issue in this appeal of assessee is as regards to the order of AO in making addition of estimated marriage expenses of Rs. 5 lakhs. For this assessee has raised the following ground No.10:- Estimated Marriage Expenses : Rs. 5 Lakhs 10.The Learned Assessing Officer has erred in making this addition, which is not based on any evidence found as a result of search The Learned Assessing Officer has erred in making an estimated addition on account of marriage expenses disregarding that the south Indian Hindu marriage expenses to borne by the bride's family. 10. We have heard rival contentions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. The facts are that during the search proceeding by Enforcement Directorate, infor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....acts and circumstances of the case. We noted that the AO while completing block assessment made estimate of personal drawings as under:- i 1993-94 Rs.60,000(at the rate of 5,000/- p.m.) ii 1994-95 Rs.60,000 iii 1995-96 Rs.1,45,000 (In the month of September, 1994, the assessee got married. Accordingly the personal expenditure is estimated Rs. 15,000/- p.m. from Sep,1994 and upto Aug,1994, it is 8,000/-p.,. iv 1996-97 Rs.3,60,000 (It is estimated at Rs. 30,000/- p.m. in view of the fact that he had started paying a rent of Rs. 15,000/- p.m. for his own residence.) v 1997-98 (upto Sep.) Rs.1,80,000 (It is estimated at Rs. 30,000/- p.m. in view of the fact that he had started paying a rent of Rs. 15,000/- p.m. for his own residence.) In view of the above chart, the AO estimated personal drawings for the block period from 01.04.1993 to 31.03.1998, Rs. 8.05 lakhs. We have gone through the block assessment order and noted that there is no incriminating material which indicates how much personal expenditure was incurred by assessee and once there is no incriminating material, there cannot be estimate which can be made by the Revenue....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s.17 to 19:- Foreign Trips : Rs. 5.89 Lakhs 17.The Learned Assessing Officer has erred in making this addition, which is not based on any evidence found as a result of search. 18.The Learned Assessing Officer has also erred in not considering the fact that one of the trips was sponsored by the company, M/s J Jay TV P Ltd. 19.The Learned Assessing Officer erred in estimating the expenses for the duration of stay @USD 500 per day, without any evidence for the same. 16. The brief admitted facts are that the assessee has undertaken three foreign trips and AO estimated expenses on account of air ticket and daily expenses for residing in US for assessment years 1993-94, 1994-95 & 1995-96 amounting to Rs. 5,89,390/- as under:- To and Fro air tickets for 1st Trip Daily expenses for 15 days at 500 US$ per day as per rate permitted by the RBI for the A.Y. 1993-94 is Rs.51,575/- Rs. 2,25,375/- To and Fro air tickets for 2nd Trip Daily expenses for 15 days at 500 US$ per day as per rate permitted by the RBI for the A.Y. 1994-95 is Rs.31,290/- Rs. 90,750/- To and Fro air tickets for 3rd Trip Daily expenses for 15 days at 500 U....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essee on these deposits amounting to Rs. 33,453/- was as under:- AY 93-94 Rs 22,512/- AY 94-95 Rs 8,503/- AY 95-96 Rs 988/- AY 96-97 Rs 956/- AY 96-97 (upto sep 96) Rs 494/- Total Interest Rs.33,453/- Hence, the AO while completing block assessment added the entire bank deposit and consequent interest, added the entire amount at Rs. 6,83,453/. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal. 19. We noted that the information regarding deposits made in assessee's savings bank account No.24701 maintained with Canara Bank, Mylapore Branch during assessment year 1993-94 amounting to Rs. 6.50 lakhs was found during the search conducted by the Enforcement Directorate at the residential premises of the assessee. When the assessee was asked to explain the source, he could not explain before the AO. Even now, when a query was put to ld.counsel, he could not explain the source of these deposits and hence, we are of the view that the AO has rightly treated these deposits and consequential interests as undisclosed income of the assessee because assessee is a non-filer. The only argument by assessee is that the addition made is not made on any ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....apalli for the relevant assessment year 1994-95 falling in the block period and consequently interest of Rs. 1,77,529/-. Thereby the AO treated the entire amount of Rs. 4,77,529/- as undisclosed income of the assessee for the block period. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal. 22. Even now before us, on query from the Bench, the ld.counsel for the assessee could not explain the source of deposit of Rs. 3 lakhs made on 02.03.1994 in Himalaya Benefit Fund Ltd., Tiruchirapalli and it was also not disclosed whether consequential interest for assessment years 1994-95, 1995-96, 1996-97 & 1997-98 i.e., upto 24.09.1996 in aggregate amounting to Rs. 4,77,529/- is disclosed in the return of income filed or not. Since the assessee failed to explain, even now before us failed to explain the source of deposit, we feel that the AO has rightly treated the income as undisclosed and hence, we confirm the order of AO and this issue of assessee's appeal is dismissed. 23. The next common issues in this appeal of assessee are as regards to the order of AO making following additions in the block period :- Additions made based on materials apparently collected from ED-G....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of assessee being Managing Director of J Jay TV Pvt. Ltd., some paper or fax message might have been found from the assessee's house by the Enforcement Directorate at the time of search. The AO without pointing out in the block assessment order or even during the course of search by Enforcement Directorate that the payments of transponder hire charges of Rs. 2.24 crores belongs to assessee or made by him is not at all proved. The assessee during the course of block assessment proceedings at various stages categorically denied in connection with the payment of transponder hire charges of Rs. 2.24 crores individually. The assessee explained that if in connection with, all these payments, it is only with the J Jay TV Pvt. Ltd., and the agreement for this payment is also between J Jay TV Pvt. Ltd., with RIMSAT. The Revenue's main contention is that these payments are made by assessee out of record of US$ 6.80 lakhs equivalent to Rs. 2.24 crores and payments were made to RIMSAT and Subic Bay out of his undisclosed income. Here, we want to clarify that there is no evidence that assessee individually involved in any payment to Rimsat or Subic Bay. Once the assessee is not individually in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e permission from the RBI to make the remittances to Rimsat. In other words, according to him, he has only used the transponder facility which was available with Mr. Raju of Malaysia. On 8.11.1996 a statement was recorded from Sri Raju residing at No. 10, Jalantaman,Riadua, Qayeritum, Post Code 11500, Penang by Chief Enforcement Officer. As per this statement Mr. Raju is not related to the assessee. He developed acquaintance with Mr.Natarajan, husband of Smt. Sasikala, assessee's aunt. With this acquaintance he came to know the other members in his group, including the assessee. He accepted the fact that he made the payment of 6,80,000 US $ (5 lakhs US $ to Rimsat and 1,80,000 US $ to Ms Subic Bay by telegraphic transfer). He stated that initially all funds were put into Standard Chartered Bank before it was transferred by way of telegraphic transfer. For depositing this amount he initially used his own funds in Standard Chartered Bank, P. Jaya at Kualalumpur. The balance amount required for this was arranged through his daughter Smt. Usha through her friends. The assessee had promised to send him back the money immediately. Later it was decided that this will be adjus....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r the payment of US $ 125000 in assessment year 1995-96 and payment of US $ 125000 in assessment year 1996-97. We noted that these payments are in equivalent to Indian Rs. 41,17,650/- for AY 1995-96 & 1996-97 i.e., in each of the years. It means that these are the payments made for installation payable as per agreement by J Jay TV Pvt. Ltd., if at all. In view of the above and our discussion in earlier issue, we feel that this being quarterly installment payable, the same cannot be treated as payment made by assessee individually. Hence, these additions are deleted by allowing this ground. However, we want to clarify that the assessment for assessment year 1995-96 is pending in the case of J Jay TV Pvt. Ltd., for adjudication before the AO. This addition, if at all or any evidence suggests as payment made by J Jay TV Pvt. Ltd., can be considered in the hands of J Jay TV Pvt. Ltd., in accordance with law. Hence, this issue of assessee's appeal is allowed. 23.3 As regards to purchase of equipment abroad and payment made on behalf of the same at Rs. 49,57,946, the AO originally recorded the facts as under:- "Information has come to light that through the help of one Mr. Ra....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ently for reducing liability of customs duty. Yet another bill seized by the ED shows purchase of equipment for136094 SD, the equivalent in INR being Rs. 28,71,583/-. Thus as per bills seized by the ED total amount spent by the assessee on purchase of equipment is Rs. 49,57,946 ( Rs. 20,86,363+ Rs. 28,71,583). It is relevant to mention here that Sri Ramachandran was shown both these bills by the ED officials and he in his statement before them confirmed that these bills relate to the purchases affected by him on behalf of the assessee. Mr. Bhaskaran in the course of his statement was specifically questioned on his dealings with Mr. Ramachandran for purchase of equipments. He was also shown the relevant portions of the statement by Mr. Ramachandran and the relevant bills evidencing such purchases. Assessee, in answer to question No.5 on this issue totally denied purchase of any equipment for J Jay TV P. Ltd. According to him since no purchase is affected the question of payment also does not arise." 23.3.1 We have heard rival contentions and gone through facts and circumstance on this issue. We noted that the AO while completing block assessment has relied on the origina....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....roprietary concern of the assessee's brother Sri Sudhagaran. According to the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence the cost of purchase of articles vide bill No. TYE 1004, referred above dtd. 05.04. 1995 is understated and its actual cost will be Rs. 20,86,3 63/-. The reason for such understatement is apparently for reducing liability of customs duty. Yet another bill seized by the ED shows purchase of equipment for136094 SD, the equivalent in INR being Rs. 28,71,583/-. Thus as per bills seized by the ED total amount spent by the assessee on purchase of equipment is Rs. 49,57,946 ( Rs. 20,86,363+ Rs. 28,71,583)." From the above, it is clear that the invoices are in the name of J Jay TV Pvt. Ltd., and purchase of electronic goods on the requirement of J Jay TV Pvt. Ltd., and for J Jay TV Pvt. Ltd., only. It means that the assessee has nothing to do with these payments, individually. But in case he has made these payments and in case, the evidence suggest such, the same can be considered or can be investigated in the hands of J Jay TV Pvt. Ltd., while framing assessment in that case as per the provisions of the Act. Even the assessee required the following details from the AO:-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1,65,540/-. Aggrieved, assessee came in appeal. 23.4.1 We noted that this issue has not been examined by the AO and no finding is given as to how these bills found from the business premises of J Jay TV Pvt. Ltd., are relatable to assessee. The AO has noted in his assessment order that the bills seized from the residence of assessee are in the name of assessee himself, which fact needs verification. Hence to examine these aspects and for a detailed enquiry, we set aside this issue to the file of the AO and after enquiry may decide the issue afresh as per law. In term of the above, this issue of assessee's appeal is set aside and we direct the AO to re-examine this issue. 23.5 Similarly, the AO recorded in regard to payment made abroad to Intersputnik Moscow and Singapore Telecom for transponder and linking facilities originally as under:- "Apart from the purchase of equipments, Sri Ramachandran's statement further clarified that the assessee approached him in 1996 for arranging transponder hire with Interesputnik, Moscow and up-linking facility with Singapore Telecom. Mr. Ramachandran stated in his statement dtd 11.11.1996 that for this arrangement also, the asse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s son Shri Sivasubramanian were Directors and they were guarantors for Singapore Telecom for securing uplinking facility with J Jay TV Pvt. Ltd. He admitted that Singapore Telecom were paid through a company by name Apooffezz Point Pvt. Ltd., at Singapore and its Directors were namely Shri Ravindran S/o Shri Ramachandran and Shri Shaukat Ali, the DGM of J Jay TV Pvt. Ltd. This company has bank account with Union Overseas Bank, Dhoby Ghat Branch, Singapore and to this bank account money was sent in Singapore Dollar by assessee through one Shri Krishnan and one Shri Baskaran (not the assessee). The AO recorded that according to the statement of Shri Ramachandran, total cash in Singapore dollar was received about 6 to 7 lakhs but in the account of Apooffezz Point Pvt. Ltd., with Union Overseas Bank, total deposits in this bank account was 11,89,565 Singapore Dollars. He admitted that payments to Intersputnik and Singapore Telecom were made out of this bank account of Apooffezz Point Pvt. Ltd. The statement of Shri Ramachandran is the sole basis for making this addition of Rs. 3,01,19,410/- equivalent to Singapore Dollar 11,89,565 but nowhere it is proved that the money has been arrang....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ct, it is evident that the department is unclear about the transaction and has also added the same item as gift under the Gift Tax Act on the ground that the Donor is not traceable." 26.1 The brief facts are that during search proceedings by the Enforcement Directorate on 21.09.1995, according to AO, the assessee was found to have Lexus Car. During the course of earlier block assessment proceedings, which was set aside by the Appellate Authorities, the assessee was requested to explain the source of purchase of car and assessee claimed to have received the car as gift. The AO reproduced the original block assessment order which reads as under:- "Assessee got married in Sept, 1994. It is claimed that at the time of his marriage he received a Lexus Car by way of gift. The assessee was questioned on the details of his becoming the owner of this valuable car. In his letter dt. 25.08.1997 the assessee simply stated that the Lexus Car was given to him as a gift and the customs duty in respect of this was paid by Tamilarasi Publications of which his aunt's husband Mr. M. Natarajan is the proprietor. In the course of his statement on 10.09.1997, he further stated that one D....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dence nor did I make any representation that I was returning for permanent resettlement in India. I have never been in possession of any documents referred to at Paragraph 6(i) and 6(ii) herein above. I categorically deny making any misdescription of the age of the vehicle or the Indian Authorities to prove that any of the documents borne my signature or handwriting. I understand that my solicitors have written to the Indian Hon'ble High Court Commission requiring copies of these documents and also have suggested that the originals of the same should be forwarded to a forensic expert of our choice for examination." 26.2 We have heard rival contentions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. We noted that originally this car was shipped into India in the name of Shri O. Kasimayan which was admitted by Dr.Balakrishnan, who is a resident of UK and statement was sent to Enforcement Directorate in which he denied gifting this car. This car was purchased by Shri O. Kasimayan. Even the payment was made by Shri O.Kasimayan if we believe the statement of Dr.Balakrishnan which was made by him and accepted by Revenue. The statement of Dr.Balakrishnan categorically states ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e grounds and hence, the same are dismissed. 28. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is partly-allowed for statistical purposes. Revenue's Appeal in ITA No.604/CHNY/2021 29. This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Chennai in ITA No.1061/19-20 dated 06.10.2021. The assessment was framed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(4), Chennai for the assessment year 2017-18 u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 153C of the Act vide order dated 31.12.2019. 30. The only issue in this appeal of Revenue is as regards to the order of CIT(A) quashing the assessment framed by AO u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 153C of the Act by holding that the AO erred in assuming jurisdiction u/s. 153C of the Act, as the satisfaction note did not contain any seized material or documents pertaining to the assessee with regard to assessment year 2017-18. For this, Revenue has raised the following Ground Nos. 2 to 4:- 2.The learned CIT (A) erred in holding that the assuming jurisdiction by the assessing officer u/s. 153C is not correct since the satisfaction note did not contain any seized material or documents pertaining to the appellant ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rant was in the name of Jazz Cinemas and the premises search is that of the assessee but panchanama does not contain any evidence to show that material pertaining to Jazz Cinemas was found in the assessee's premises. The AO noted that the authorization was given to search the assessee's premises by issuing the warrant in the name of Jazz Cinemas / V. Dhivaharan. The assessee contended before CIT(A) that the AO is silent about recording of satisfaction by the AO of the searched person by virtue of which, notice u/s. 153C of the Act was issued. The assessee challenged the very assumption of jurisdiction by the AO that from foundation of issuance of notice u/s. 153C of the Act is without recording of satisfaction by the AO of the searched person. For this, before CIT(A), the assessee relied on the following case laws:- a) "Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Calcutta Kitwears (2014) 6 SCC 444 b) Pepsi Foods Pvt Ltd Vs Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, 2014 367 ITR 112 Delhi c) Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Bipinchandra Chimanlal Doshi 2017 395 ITR 632 Gujarat d) Ganpati Fincap Services Pvt Ltd Vs Commissioner of Income Tax 2017 395 ITR 692 Delhi The CI....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e, the AO has not referred any seized material pertaining to the appellant with regard to the determination of the additional income of the appellant relating to this AY. The satisfaction note does not contain any seized material or document that is relatable to this AY or has any bearing on the determination of the total income of the appellant [attributable to the cash deposits] for the current AY under consideration. 16. In view of the foregoing discussions, I am of the view that the assessment passed by the AO u/s 153C of the Act for the AY under consideration is bad in the eyes of law. The appellant's ground on jurisdiction is allowed. Aggrieved, Revenue is in appeal before us. 32. Before us, the ld.CIT-DR made submissions that the assessee did not file any cross-objection to the appeal filed by the department in this Case. Therefore, the Grounds' in the written submissions, which go beyond the grounds of appeal filed by the department before the ITAT, may be construed only as points of argument by the respondent and nothing more. Many of the arguments now advanced by the responded were not taken by the assessee before the CIT(A). Ld CIT Dr argued that the C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e, summons or other proceeding is in substance and effect in conformity with or according to the intent and purpose of this Act. 32.1 He further argued that the assessing officer precisely and categorically has to determine the assessment year to which the seized material pertains and only then the statutory condition u/s 153C of the Act is made. The assessee has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Agni Vishnu Enterprise reported in 460 ITR 438, however, in a subsequent ruling reported in 463 ITR 431 in the case of Indian National Congress, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held that a composite Satisfaction Note would suffice requirements of section 153C provided it embody details of material gathered in course of search and pertaining to assessment years forming part of block as a whole. It may be mentioned that the scale and volume of seized material varies from year to year and in the facts and circumstances of the case, the satisfaction note has been correctly formed. 32.2 He further argued that section 153C of the Act does not mandate issuance of notice for all six AYs. It is further mentioned that the only exception tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 56 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951; or (ii) the assets seized or requisitioned are connected in any manner to the ongoing election process in an assembly or parliamentary constituency; and (iii) no evidence is available or investigation is required for any assessment year other than the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which search is conducted or requisition is made. 5.The certificate of the investigating officer shall be communicated to the Commissioner of Income Tax and the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over the case of such person. The case of the assessee is not covered by the above Rule 112F and therefore, notice for all the six years have been validly initiated and served. The ld. CIT DR also relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. S.Ajit Kumar reported in [2018] 404 ITR 526(SC). 33. On the other hand, the ld.counsel for the assessee relied on the order of CIT(A). 34. We have heard rival contentions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. We noted that search and seizure operation was conducted by the Department u/s. 132 of the Act on 09.11.2017 in the grou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessment year 2017-18. Admittedly, the search was conducted on 09.11.2017 and whatever cash found and gold jewellery found was to be assessed in financial year 2017-18 relevant to the assessment year 2018-19 and not this present assessment year 2017-18. Once there is no incriminating material or seized material, as is evidence from satisfaction note, in relation to this assessment year i.e., 2017-18, no assessment can be framed while invoking the provisions of section 153C of the Act, because assessee is not the searched person. The ld.counsel for the assessee relied on the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of Agni Vishnu Ventures (P.) Ltd., vs. DCIT reported in [2023] 157 Taxmann.com 242 (Mad), wherein the Hon'ble Madras High Court considering the provisions of section 153C of the Act held that recording of satisfaction by the AO of the searched entity should be on the basis of incriminating material found due to third party. The Hon'ble Madras High Court considered this issue vide paras 79 to 82 as under:- "79. Section 153C however requires the satisfaction of two conditions prior to issuance of notice: i) Recording of satisfaction by the Ass....